Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member and Vinay Kumar, Member
TOMY - Appellant
Versus
EAPEN GEORGE - Respondent
Revision Petition Nos. 1851 and 1852 of 2011 along with I.A. No. 01 of 2011 from Order dated 29.11.2010 in Appeal Nos. 19, 20 of 2005 of State Commission, Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on : 03-07-2012
Mr. D'Souza Philip K., Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Harshad V. Hameed, Advocate, for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of providing evidence to support claims for compensation and the need to assess the extent of the deficiency in service to determine the quantum of compensation.
Headnote:
Compensation - Construction Defects - Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission - [Compensation, Construction Defects] - [Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 21(b), Section 21(d)] - The court discussed the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, specifically Section 21(b) and Section 21(d), which deal with the power of the State Commission to pass orders and the factors to be considered while determining the quantum of compensation. The court emphasized the need for evidence to support the claim for compensation and the importance of assessing the extent of the deficiency in service. The court's decision was influenced by the lack of evidence to prove the estimated cost of repairs and the minor nature of the leakage, leading to the reduction of compensation from Rs. 2 lakh to Rs. 25,000 in each case.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners constructed a residential building using a new technology for concrete roofs. Cracks and leakage appeared, and they sought compensation from the respondent for the defects. The District Forum directed the respondent to repair the roof and pay compensation, which was partly allowed by the State Commission, reducing the compensation amount.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners failed to provide evidence to support the estimated cost of repairs and that the leakage was minor in nature. It upheld the State Commission's decision to reduce the compensation amount from Rs. 2 lakh to Rs. 25,000 in each case.
Issues: The main issue was whether the State Commission was justified in reducing the compensation amount from the District Forum's order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for evidence to support the claim for compensation and the importance of assessing the extent of the deficiency in service. It also highlighted the lack of evidence to prove the estimated cost of repairs and the minor nature of the leakage, which influenced the decision to reduce the compensation amount.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revisions, upholding the State Commission's decision to reduce the compensation amount from Rs. 2 lakh to Rs. 25,000 in each case.
ORDER
V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member - These revision petitions arise from the common order dated 29.11.2010 passed by Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (for short as 'state Commission') in Revision Petition Nos. 19 and 20 of 2005, filed before the State Commission.
2. Along with these petitions, applications seeking condonation of delay of 85 days have also been filed.
3. Brief facts are that petitioners/complainants attracted by a new technology propounded by the respondent/opposite party in constructing concrete building roofs using beams and shells only, instead of the conservative type of reinforced concrete technology, which assured considerable decrease in cost of construction had constructed, a residential building during 2002 as per the new scheme and using a residence since 15.8.2002. After two months during rains in October, cracks appeared near the beams and leakage was found. On the next day, respondent was informed and he effected certain repairs. But it was not of any use. Repeated demands were made to the respondent to rectify the defects but nothing was done. So, petitioners approached District Forum for directions to the respondent to pay Rs. 9 lakh each, as compensation.
4. Respondent in its written version stated that the new technology is free from any defect and he had only supplied materials to the petitioners. Respondent is only manufacturing the beams and shells intended for the roof of the structure. He had not undertaken any contract work or supervision for the construction of the petitioners building. If any leakage has occurred, it may be due to the poor workmanship of the masons who have done the construction for which he is not responsible. So, he is not liable for any compensation.
5. District Forum vide order dated 27.1.2004, allowed the complaints and passed following directions:
"In the result, the opposite party is directed to repair the roof of the building of the complainant within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order and to make it free from any leakage. If the opposite party fails to do within the time allowed or, if any leakage appears in the roof even after the repairs, the complainant is allowed to realize Rs. 2,00,000 (Rupees two lakh only) in Complaint No. 54 of 2003 (R.P. No. 1851/2011) and Rs. 1,50,000 (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) in Complaint No. 167 of 2003 (R.P. No. 1852/2011) by way of compensation from the opposite party, with 12% interest from the date of this order."
6. Aggrieved by above order, respondent filed revision petitions before the State Commission, which partly allowed the same vide its impugned order and passed the following directions;
"In the result the revision petitions are allowed in part thereby the revision petitioner is directed to pay Rs. 25,000 each to the complainant in O.P. No. 254/03 and in O.P. No. 167/03 within two months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amounts shall carry interest at 9% per annum from the date of complaint till date of payment. The facts and circumstances of the present revision petitions warrant no order as to costs."
7. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
8. Taking up applications for condonation of delay, the main reason on which condonation has been sought is reproduced as under:
"The petitioner engaged a lawyer at Delhi. But certain documents which were necessary for the preparation of the case was required to be translated from the vernacular language, Malayalam to English. By the time the draft was prepared the petitioner fell ill and could not travel long distances due to heavy back pain. Hence there occurred a delay of 85 days in preferring the Special Leave Petition."
9. It is nowhere stated as to on which date petitioner engaged the lawyer at Delhi and when the draft was prepared and on which date these petitions were filed. Both these applications for condonation of delay are absolutely vague and same have been
